User talk:VBGFscJUn3

Smile!

A Nobody^{My talk} has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter

The Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter Issue 2 (January 2010) Previous issue | Next issue

Content

The community is currently

deciding whether

60,000

articles should be deleted.

background

• News items and announcements
• Contest

• Featured editor: Teeninvestor
• Featured administrator: WereSpielChequers

• Want ads
• Feature: FeydHuxtable: Search Techniques

BC vs BCE

Hey guy, or gal, I guess. Stagyar Zil Doggo here. You left me a message about changing 'BCE' to 'BC' and the rest. Thanks for the tip, but your message implies that I edited needlessly. Sometimes I change from the one to the other because instances of both occur in an article, which you've got to admit is syntactically inappropriate. The reason I change Common Era notations to Anno Domini notations is that I like the Anno Domini system better. Call me romantic, heh heh, but I remember a time when no-one had ever heard of Common Era. The first time I heard of it was in my junior year of high school, when I took an anthropology class taught by an eccentric who was mildly zealous about the idea. Wikipedia articles and textbooks are still the only places I've ever seen it used - not even my local paper uses it. Seriously, everyone, everyone - but no-one - knows Anno Domini. Nobody is meaningfully rankled by it's use. I guess the bottom line is that I'm not convinced of an impetus to phase it out. Tell me otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stagyar Zil Doggo (talk • contribs) 00:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

It looks like somebody got rankled since this comment. To avoid future conflict, you should consider discussing this on an article's talk page before changing the year numbering system. No one is trying to phase out Anno Domini - in fact, WP:ERA prohibits phasing it out without consensus. The same applies to Common Era. --Explodicle (T/C) 15:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey! I didn't even know there were talk pages - that's kinda neat. But don't worry about it. It's gonna take more than cryptic naysaying from Mr. Shabazz if he wants to manifest a conflict. And that teacher I mentioned was certainly trying to phase Anno Domini out, that's what I meant - not within the context of Wikipedia, but inasmuch as the Common Era system exists as an alternative. Stagyar Zil Doggo (talk) 01:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of emoticons

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of emoticons. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of emoticons. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Antonio Puig

Thanks for letting me know. Maurreen (talk) 16:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cousins Properties

why is it that User:Malleus Fatuorum can edit AfDs such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cousins Properties after they have concluded (the AfD was closed at 21:18 - User:Malleus Fatuorum added a comment an hour and a half later) but i cannot? do not get me wrong - if i could get away with doing what User:Malleus Fatuorum gets away with i would but i am not all buddy buddy with wikipedia admins like User:Malleus Fatuorum is Misterdiscreet (talk) 19:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Neither of you should be doing it. Thanks for bringing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cousins Properties to my attention, I just removed the post-closure comments from that one too. --Explodicle (T/C) 20:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Doom Troopers

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Doom Troopers, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Whoops! Thanks! --Explodicle (T/C) 22:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Verbal

Just to present a neutral point of view that just happened to notice what was going on. From what it looks like to me, A Nobody was the one being rather offensive, not Verbal. Silverseren^C 23:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

There is a difference between attacking someone and telling it like it is. Verbal and I have some history. Part of that history is that he shows up in discussions after me to say that opposite of what I argue while demonstrating ignorance of the subject. See for example here and note the nearly copy and paste style wording of his post there with his post on the list talk page as well as the accusations against the Article Rescue Squadron. Anyway, you cannot say someone who is verified in over a dozen published sources let alone many more reliable internet sources has "no independent RS". That is not factually accurate and doing a source search reveals as much. Thus making a false statement reflects either not looking for sources or... Second, when I argue based on specific sources that I also edit into the article ([1] and [2]), it is offensive to dismiss those of us opposing the merge as merely expressing WP:ILIKEIT. No, I think it should be kept, because it meets WP:V and WP:N based on the sources I have come across and my knowledge of the character who is a starring character in one game, one of the main characters in another, a playable character in still another, who has been made into an action figure, etc. Thus it gets old when some of these accounts who have no history of working on or interest in the actual subject making uninformed statements about it. By contrast, someone like User:New Age Retro Hippie, although I disagree with him, has credibility in that discussion as someone who has actually worked on the article and from my other interactions is not ignorant of the franchise. Ergo, even if he and I have a spirited disagreement, neither of us would justifiable doubt each other's good faith interest in trying to do what is best with the content, even if we disagree about how to best use it. Thus, I would not reply to him in a manner that calls him out, because I know he will indeed actually look for and add sources to these things. I cannot say the same for Verbal and indeed if anything when someone makes a blatantly untrue declaration about something they clearly (again look at the article's history) do not have any interest in, I, as someone who has been contributing to the article for over two years do not just let so untrue statements go uncalled out. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)